Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Greg Pope in the Chair]
MC 06 Shellfish Association of Great Britain

Clause 292

The coastal access scheme

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 292, page 188, line 5, at end insert
and shall put the proposed scheme or any revised scheme out to public consultation..

Greg Pope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 55, in clause 296, page 193, line 4, at end insert
(h) consult appropriate representative bodies for recreational users and land management organisations,
(i) consider any other representations received by them..

This amendment is designed to add the organisations which have already been indicated by Ministers in the Lords who be notified of reports and have their representations passed on to the Secretary of State on reports to a list of organisations which will be consulted on the content of reports.

Richard Benyon: It is a great pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Mr. Pope. You will see that we have made startling progress since you were last here, but there are still important issues to resolve before we complete the Committee stage, one of which is raised by my amendment.
The amendment seeks to ensure that before the Secretary of State approves Natural Englands final proposals for the coastal access scheme and lays them before Parliament, those proposals are subject to public consultation. Consultation has arisen on numerous occasions in various areas of the Bill. I anticipate that the Minister will argue that there has been consultation, and that there will be extensive further consultation. I note that on page 9 of the draft scheme guidance on coastal access prepared by Natural England, there is a helpful flow chart of the various processes of the designation of the path, which includes a number of different consultations. I appreciate that, but the consultation that I propose is for a particular area.
There will be extensive further consultation with local authorities and key individuals during the drawing up of coastal access reports, and we support that. However, I wish to make a specific point on an area from which public consultation seems to be conspicuously absent, and I hope that, in the spirit of the conversations that we have had on these sorts of concerns, the Minister will be able to reassure me.
The amendment deals with public consultation on the coastal access outline scheme, rather than on the coastal access reports, which will be consulted on after the outline scheme is approved. The scheme will outline how Natural England will approach the discharge of its coastal access duty and will constitute the guiding principles for coastal access reports. It is therefore extremely important that Natural England gets it right, and that the concerns of all parties are taken into account before the scheme is sent for approval by the Secretary of State and then laid before Parliament, at which point there will be no recourse to amend it. As the Bill stands, there will be consultation on the outline scheme with such persons as Natural England considers appropriate. That leaves the choice of who gets consulted completely at the discretion of Natural England. How will Natural England determine who is appropriate? Surely public consultation would be preferable, so that all interested parties are given an opportunity to contribute, rather than an elite few chosen by Natural England.
Although Natural England has released the draft outline scheme, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has produced a draft section 3A order indicating both how access will be implemented and the changes that the Department proposes to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, both those documents are subject to change, especially the latter. So much is being left to the discretion of Natural England, and we are putting huge faith in an unelected body. It is hard to know what the final scheme will consist of, and the public must have a right to be consulted, in addition to the consultation that was held prior to the drafting of the Bill. The amendment seeks to ensure that all members of the public are given equal access to the consultation on the outline scheme before the scheme is approved. That means that the best informed version will reach the Secretary of State and Parliament.

Andrew George: I support amendment 42 and would like to give a little more background to amendment 55, which is in my name. On the basis of the case made by the hon. Member for Newbury, I support the opportunity for extended public consultation on any proposals. One issue that has not been covered in the debate so far is that of the many visitor attraction businesses that exist on the coastline. A lot of our attention has been placed on coastal access in relation to members of the public engaged in shooting, or other recreational activities. However, some businesses will be on either side of the coastal footpath, and it is reasonable to ensure their interests in maintaining their businesses. For example, some businesses have a hotel on the headland, but also have exclusive rights to other parts of the coastline right up to the high water mark, and sometimes beyond. That needs to be recognised. In my constituency, there is a local visitor attraction business, a historic house, which is increasingly used for wedding ceremonies and other events, where it is reasonable to expect a certain amount of privacy. That needs to be taken into account when considering the proposals and should form part of the consultation.
Amendment 55 relates to clause 296. It would add a requirement that Natural England consult appropriate representative bodies for recreational users and land management organisations and consider any representations from them. The setting of the route on the coastal margin will be done locally, and Natural England will have a duty to consult landowners and occupiers and take their views into account. Natural England is required to consult bodies with a relevant interest, as we have already mentioned, such as access authorities, the Environment Agency and local access forums, but it stops there. There is currently no such requirement for Natural England to consult or consider representations from user group bodies or the public. Natural England does not have to consider any representations from members of the public during the drafting of its reports. Some user groups, such as the Ramblers Association, believe that that imbalance could lead to user groups and the public effectively being frozen out of the duty of fair balance, and thus lead to implementation which favours the interests of others and not necessarily those other user groups.
During debates in the House of Lords, cross-party support was shown for greater involvement of user groups and the public in the drafting of the reports. For example, on 21 April, Lord Taylor of Holbeach stated:
National and local organisations will also be important. The briefings that Peers on all sides have received from some of them show how useful they can be in identifying the concerns of both potential users and those who will be affected. To ignore them would be a big mistake. My third amendment would ensure that they, too, are consulted properly during the preparatory stages.[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 April 2009; Vol. 709, c. 1441.]
During discussion of the Bill on Report, the noble Lord Judd said:
It would be reassuring and helpful for these tremendously committed and important people in our society if my noble friend could unequivocally say at the Dispatch Box that the regulations will underline the importance of such bodies being part of the list of people to be consulted, not least on appeals. That is where the anxiety exists.[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 49.]
In the same debate, the noble Baroness Hamwee said:
My Lords, the amendment is about a fair balance. The imbalance is in the consultation, as Natural England will have to consider representations from persons with a relevant interest but not to consult bodies representing user group and the public. That is why this is particularly important. The imbalance is not corrected in the new schedule.[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 25.]
In response, Ministers conceded that user groups would have their representations passed on in full to the Secretary of State, and that they would be notified by Natural England of reports, but critically that they would not be included formally in the consultations. On behalf of the Government, the noble Lord Hunt said:
I listened to my noble friend Lord Judd with great care, and we will have to consult in full on the persons it would be appropriate to include, but we have in mind that they would include the Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society, the British Mountaineering Council, the Country Land & Business Association and the National Farmers Union, and we will listen to other suggestions with great interest...I have already named several bodies that we expect to include in the regulations, so that their representations would go in full to the Secretary of State. They include such organisations as the Country Land & Business Association, the NFU, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society.[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 51-52.]
If the duty of fair balance is to be achieved during the local implementation of the coastal access duty, bodies representing user groups and the public must be consulted on the content of coastal access reports. I certainly hope that the Minister will offer reassurances that, although named organisations beyond access forums and local authorities are not detailed in the Bill, they will be involved formally in the consultation. I also hope that there will be a requirement for Natural England to take fully into account the representations that it receives and that we receive some further reassurance that the interests of the public, as expressed during the consultation, will be taken fully on board because, as written, other than the response of the Minister in the House of Lords, nothing in the Bill offers the reassurance that we want.

Ann McKechin: Good morning, Mr. Pope. This is an important debate with which to start our sitting because it is key to making sure that as many people as possible can take part in the process of devising schemes and subsequent local reports as we extend coastal access throughout England.
I want to make it clear at the beginning that we fully intend that Natural England will consult as widely as possible on both the draft scheme, which was referred to in amendment 42, and the subsequent reports that are mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Ives in amendment 55. However, public consultation and how we define groups to be consulted is a bit more tricky. I hope to put on the record this morning assurances of the nature of the consultation that we expect to take place, which I hope will satisfy hon. Members.
Amendment 42 deals with the duty on Natural England under clause 292 to set out in a scheme to be approved by the Secretary of State the general approach it will take in implementing the coastal access duty. We have already made copies of the draft scheme availablethe hon. Member for Newbury referred to it this morning. I hope that that has added to the understanding of what is intended in the process.

Charles Walker: I do not expect an answer on this now, but if these consultations take place across the country, will there be budgetary implications for Natural England? Is it sufficiently resourced to manage those consultations or shall we see a massive expansion in the number of people employed by the organisation?

Ann McKechin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have taken the cost of consultation into account and we do not envisage a significant increase. I will come on to why we believe that to be the case.
As the hon. Member for Newbury correctly pointed out, the scheme has to be approved by the Secretary of State and then laid before Parliament. That procedure is recommended by Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The input from Members of this House and from the other place will provide Natural England with an opportunity to take into account any suggestions about the scheme. If necessary, the scheme can then be revised from time to time, subject to further approval by the Secretary of State and it being laid before Parliament.
The Bill already requires Natural England to consult such persons as it considers appropriate before it prepares or revises a scheme. Natural England has developed its draft scheme in consultation with key organisations and I am confident that it will wish to continue those consultations as it develops the scheme. I do not believe that amendment 42, which would require Natural England to put the proposed scheme out to public consultation, is necessary. As I have said, Natural England will want to consult as widely as possible, and given that the scheme or any revision has to be approved by the Secretary of State, it will want to do that in advance of submitting the scheme to the Secretary of State. In approving the scheme, the Secretary of State will take into account the extent and coverage of the consultation process.
I now turn to amendment 55, which also deals with consultation. Clause 296 amends part 4 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to require Natural England to consult with various relevant bodies before drawing up a report in addition to the persons already included in section 51(4) of the 1949 Act. It is not necessary to extend the list of organisations that must be consulted in clause 296 proposed section 55D(6) in the way that amendment 55would do. The process for consultation in clause 55D was drawn up to reflect what is already in section 51 of the 1949 Act and it places sufficient requirements on Natural England to consult appropriately. Natural Englands scheme, which was published in December 2008, and which we have made available already builds in such a draft report stage.
It might be helpful if I set out in greater detail the process by which Natural England will advertise its intention to start work on a particular stretch of coast and how, once it is drawn up, a draft report will be advertised so that people may be made aware of the proposals. Local authorities will be best placed to know of local interests and, where local authorities are willing to participate, Natural England will enter into agreements to enable the local authority to carry out preliminary work to facilitate the preparation of a coastal access report. We have amended the Bill in the other place to clarify that point.
When a new stretch is starting to be considered and an agreement with the local authority has been reached, the local authority will identify and contact all the relevant local stakeholders and interest groups to inform them. The authority may also at this stage be asked to issue a media release to ensure wider awareness. The authority will start to identify all relevant landowners and other relevant interests in affected land to start the phase described at paragraph 3.3 in Natural Englands draft scheme as Walking the course. The authority will visit the land that might be affected and will discuss the options for the route with those who own and manage it. The comments made by the hon. Member for St. Ives about a hotel that might have functions near the coastline on certain days of the week wanting to ensure privacy is a good example of what we would expect.
In the draft report, Natural England envisages the local authority managing the consultation process. In each case, Natural England will agree a consultation plan with the local authority that will incorporate all reasonable actions to ensure that so far as practicable those who may have an interest are made aware of the consultation. The contacts made during the initial Walking the course phase will provide information that will be used to inform individuals at subsequent stages of the process about their opportunity to comment on the draft report, their right to make representations and, if appropriate, object.
Every bit of coast is different. There are many different interests and they vary. The whole process gets the preliminary survey done so that we truly know who needs to be consulted and who needs to be aware in any particular area. In terms of wider awareness, it is expected that the local authority will issue a media release at the beginning of the consultation period and write to local stakeholders and interest groups who will have been identified at earlier stages. Natural England has already said that it will publish its draft proposals on the internet and invite all relevant interests to comment on them. It will allow a period of 12 weeks for people to view the proposals and submit comments on the report. Copies of the report will be provided in alternative formats where this is required by particular consultees, but the aim will be to minimise the number of printed copies, particularly at the draft report stage, for environmental and cost reasons.
In view of the details that I have outlined, it is clear that the consultation will be extensive and comprehensive.

Andrew George: Certainly, the points that the Minister is making are reassuring to many of the organisations that might be concerned about not being consulted. However, can she expand a little more and give further reassurance to those organisations that find or believe that they are not able for one reason or another to engage in the consultation process, or feel that they are being excluded? What mechanism will there be for a local organisation or individuals with an interest in a route to contest circumstances when they feel that their voice is not being heard in the consultation process?

Ann McKechin: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because someone might not take part in the initial consultation process. There was a parking scheme in my area in which no one took part until the scheme came out and then they said, No, we dont like it. That happens and is sometimes in the nature of public consultations. That is why we say that after the report is drawn up, when it comes out, everyone can make representations, including specific bodies as set out in the regulations. It is in Natural Englands interest to consult such bodies before drawing up the report, and to ensure that it takes account of the representations made when it publishes the report.

Charles Walker: So that we do not get into the realm of endless consultations, will there be a duty on Natural England to go out and find people to consult? If we just throw it out there and say, Here is the consultation, here is the deadline, but no one knows about it or only half the people who might be interested respond to it, there is a danger that we could end up having to go back and consult people again. Will Natural England go out and till the soil to find people?

Ann McKechin: As I said, there will be a preliminary phase called Walking the course, which in most cases will be undertaken by local authorities that want to take part and join in partnership with Natural England in the process. That is the first, important phase. In the second phase, a media release will be put out, so a public notice will be sent out as well as use made of the internet, which is increasingly the medium of choice. There is a two-part process. Walking the course is the most important part, because making such a detailed study in advance, on a case-by-case basis, is a better way of ensuring that as many people who are likely to be affected as possible are physically contacted. Local authorities, particularly, have very good local knowledge.

Andrew George: The main area of potential concern is inevitably where there is dispute between the interests of landowners, or other interest groups, and those who may take a different view or access bodies such as the Ramblers Association. We can envisage that those interests may conflict, although not always. On most occasions such issues will be resolved, but in a dispute about access to the coastline will it be incumbent on Natural England to make clear how it responded to the issues raised?

Ann McKechin: Again, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I can assure him that there is a duty of fair balance on Natural England in the Bill. Yes, at times it will have to make difficult decisions, but it is specifically stated that it must strike a fair balance.

Charles Walker: May I intervene, because I would like to help? Because it has to take decisions, Natural England will upset one side or another. We do not live in a perfect world where there will be an equal balance; sometimes the interests of landowners who have to derive a living off their farms will have to take precedence over the rights of ramblers, so the Minister cannot have a perfect world. I am saying that to support her.

Ann McKechin: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. Natural England will have to make decisions from time to time that will not please everyone. That is why we have said that it has a duty to strike a fair balance when making a decision, which also needs to be timely so that people have certainty and know where they will be moving from. I hope that, on the basis of the reassurances that I have given the Committee, the hon. Member for Newbury will withdraw his amendment.

Richard Benyon: I do not want to put words into the mouth of the hon. Member for St. Ives, but I think, coming at the same point independently, we were both seeking to tie Natural England to a commitment. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne is concerned about consultation overload; we want consultation that works. Under a previous regime, my local authority had a habit of consulting when it knew what it wanted to achieve. It threw out a consultation that nobody knew about and came down on the side of the decision that it had already taken.

Ann McKechin: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Further to the point that his hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne raised, I can confirm that local authorities will undertake most of the work, and be enabled to support Natural England. Natural England will in turn fund time-limited posts in local authorities so there will be no new burden on them. It will be time limited. If local authorities want to take part, they will know in advance when the consultation will expire and when they will be expected to have done the job.

Richard Benyon: That is helpful. It is much better to have a quality consultation that everybody can access, that more people know about and that uses a range of methods to inform people. Through the Land Registry and other data sources, such as council tax records, it is perfectly obvious who property owners are. It is less easy to get access to key interest groups. While I believe that Natural England has made a good start with this document, which shows a clear approach that can be made to work in most areas to the satisfaction of most people, this is a 10-year aspiration, plan or project. We do not know what the organisation will be like in the future and whether those operating in certain areas will be as assiduous. The amendment was an attempt to get more of a duty in the Bill.

Ann McKechin: May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is a review process? The first review will occur three years after the Act comes into force. [Interruption.] Yes, three to five years.

Richard Benyon: Again, that helps me in deciding what to do with the amendment.
In developing this part of the Bill, many people have come to usfrankly, very late in the daysaying that they have property or business interests, or many other sorts of interests, in parts of coastal Britain and are suddenly concerned about how the legislation will affect their lives. That is human nature, as the Minister said. We cannot expect people just to know, as we do in this bubble in which we live and breathe, about the minutiae of this legislation. They are getting on with their lives, and they believe that they will be able to gain access.
Given the Ministers assurances, and an understanding that the principles laid out in the proposed scheme and the attitude adopted by Natural England will continue throughout the process, as we prioritise different parts of the access provisionswork on the more contentious areas might come laterit is in everyones interest to have the quick wins that will satisfy the demands of tourism. Local landowners, for example, want a coastal path that will bring people to their bed-and-breakfast accommodation and so on. The more contentious issues may be dealt with in two, three, four or five years time, and we want to ensure that interested parties are consulted. However, the Minister has given us enough reassurance for me to withdraw the amendment at the appropriate moment.

Andrew George: I concur with the hon. Gentleman. The Minister offered a number of reassurances, which are now on the record. They point to a requirement for local authorities and Natural England to agree a consultation plan.
I do not know to what extent words have been put into my mouth, regarding the suggestion that I want to create an environment that would result in consultation overload. I fully accept what the hon. Member for Broxbourne said; although Natural England needs to demonstrate that it is trying to balance the arguments fairly in disputes on access to the coastline, its ultimate decision will doubtless lead to disappointment on one side or the other. I was seeking clarity on whether the process would be transparent, and that if there were disputes, Natural England would make clear the basis of its decisions, explaining how it had weighed the arguments. I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury. It has been a good debate, and it has reassured us both. I hope that we have reassured those organisations that raised concerns about the availability of wider consultation than appears to be offered under the Bill.

Richard Benyon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 292 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 293 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 294

The English coast

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: It is good to be under your stewardship today, Mr. Pope. We had storms as a backdrop to our last sitting. Today, the skies are clearjust the day for walking the coast rather than sitting here. However, we have an important job to do.
The clause defines the English coast for the purposes of this part of the Bill. It refers to the
coast of England adjacent to the sea.
It includes the coast of any island, except for excluded islands. Islands that are not excludedthose islands considered part of the English coastare those that are accessible on foot. It must be possible to walk to the island across the foreshore, or by means of a bridge, a tunnel or a causeway, either from the mainland of England or from another accessible island. It also includes islands that are accessible on foot only at certain times, such as at low tide.
If an island is not accessible on foot, and is therefore excluded, the Secretary of State may choose to specify by order that it is included in the definition of the English coast, provided that they are satisfied that the coast of the island is long enough to offer an adequate walk-in route. We will consider whether there are any islands that are not accessible on foot that should be included.
The case for including the Isle of Wight has been made in the other place. That is our largest free-standing island which, by and large, possesses the same characteristics as a large part of the English coast and its hinterland. The Isle of Wight is also a unitary authority in its own right. The coastal path spans the whole of the island and includes 67 miles of well-maintained paths, and the island can be reached by regular ferry services. In our view, that puts the island into a specific category compared with other inaccessible islands, and we will take steps to issue an order to include the Isle of Wight under clause 294(2)(b). With that assurance and clarification, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 294 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 295 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 296

Long-distance routes

Andrew George: I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 296, page 191, line 31, at end insert
(c) any period of the non-operation of a ferry which is in use as part of the ordinary route..

This amendment is designed to allow Natural England to propose an alternative route to act as a diversion from the ordinary route when that ordinary route includes a ferry with a period of non-operation.

Greg Pope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 47, in clause 296, page 191, line 39, at end insert
(e) future coastal developments.

Andrew George: The amendment would clarify the relationship of the coastal path with available ferry services. In estuaries where a ferry service exists, but does not run all year round or is limited and operates only on certain days or during certain hours, there are concerns that it might not provide continuity or connectivity with the coastal path.
Several user groups have concerns regarding the use of ferries in the discharge of the access duty as set out in clause 290(7). The use of seasonal ferries or those with a limited running period as part of the coastal pathway will lead to disruptions and gaps in the continuous route. That was confirmed during debates in the House of Lords when Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said that
it would not be impossible for a summer ferry service to be used as part of a coastal access route. It is an amenity and enables people to cross the estuary. If the service is not available during the winter, clearly the pathway will have to stop at the ferry point.[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2009; Vol. 709, c. 930.]
As a result of that and other comments, the use of ferries as a means of maintaining continuity in estuaries was raised on Second Reading. The amendment would allow Natural England the flexibility to look at whether an alternative route could be put in place for use by the public during periods in which the ferries did not operate. Where that is practical, it would alleviate the problem. There are a large number of examples where an intermittent ferry service might provide the coastal link in an estuarine situationthe Fleetwood to Knott End-on-Sea route in the Lancashire coastal area is one. On the south-west coastal path, the ferry across the river Torridge from Appledore to Instow saves 12 km of walking, but operates only in summer. There is also only a limited ferry service from St. Mawes to Place creek in the parish of St. Anthony on the Roseland peninsula, and from Exmouth to Starcross in south Devon. The primary purpose of this aspect of the Bill is to maintain a continuous path around the coast. Where the link is essentially provided by an intermittent ferry service, Natural England should look for an alternative continuous route which is all-year-round and more accessible. There should be a duty on Natural England to identify a continuous path. I hope that the Minister will take into account the concerns raised in debates in the House of Lords.

Richard Benyon: I am concerned that the hon. Gentlemans amendment would limit the most important quality of the proposal for a coastal access path simplicity and clear understanding. There may be many ways to deal with continuance of the path in the off-season when a ferry no longer operates. I would hate the Bill to go down the route of making a complex timed requirement to open up certain other areas. I have in mind the Cromarty firth, off the Moray firth, where there is a narrow neck of water with a summer ferry, so people have good access at that time. If, when it is closed, we create a requirement to open up what I think is called the Invergordon

Ann McKechin: The Bill does not affect coastal routes in Scotland.

Richard Benyon: I am well aware of that, but that is the area I have in mind, which is similar to many others. It would open a vast inland area that includes a busy working port. It is an example in my head. I know it is in Scotland but it may well apply in England, where a six-month alternative route would cause great complications. I understand where the hon. Member for St. Ives is coming from and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Our amendment relates to the list on page 191 of the Bill. Proposed new section 55C (4) gives four reasons why a route may be diverted, and they are
flooding, the action of the tide, coastal erosion or encroachment by the sea...the effect of any other geomorphological process.
We seek to add future coastal developments. There is concern that once the coastal path has been designated on undeveloped land, any future developments will have to take into consideration the route of that path. There may be times when the route should be allowed to continue where it is, but there may be other opportunities in which the chance of developmentjobs, securing the legitimate business interests of landowners or businesses based in that areawould be threatened because of the path running through the property.
Future coastal developments, in particular those that need to be on the land-sea boundary such as marinas and boat yards, should not be opposed due to the presence of an existing coastal path. Diversions should automatically be made around such sites once planning permission has been granted. We shall go on to talk about planning and the relationship of the coastal path to planning legislation under later amendments, but I am respectfully suggesting to the Minister that in most circumstances, the path should be subordinate to legitimate development of businesses such as the ones I have listed in coastal areas. Not to include that in the clause would be of potential harm to many legitimate coastal businesses, which may well support the proposal but feel threatened by the fact that future developments will be made very difficult by what is effectively a new charge on the land around their property.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me first set the backdrop for the two amendments. Clause 296, to which they refer, inserts new provisions for coastal access into the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which sets out the provisions for the designation of long-distance routes. The clause also inserts new sections after section 55 of the 1949 Act, including proposed new section 55C, which provides for Natural Englands report, which we have just discussed, to identify in addition to the ordinary route an alternative route, which may
operate as a diversion from the ordinary route...during ...specified...periods
or when
access to the ordinary route...is excluded
or restrictedfor example, for land management purposes. The provision also enables the alternative route to operate flexibly, for example during the nesting seasons of particular species or breeds of birds, which might vary from year to year, not only from season to season.
Turning to amendment 54, I understand its intent. I take the point of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland: Wales is not directly included in the provisions, but as a north Gower mudflat boy I am aware that estuarine environments are some of the trickiest environments, both for walking and access and for habitat and species. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives would mean that an alternative route could operate as a permanent alternative routeit would be a stand-by route. That ordinary route could include a ferry with a period of non-operationI take the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury, that at a certain time of year, or on a certain date, the ferry stops operating. Some ferries might have well scheduled operations, but others might decide when the season has come to an end early, Well stop now. However, what about advising people that there is now an alternative route, bearing in mind what I said about the trickiness of estuarine environments?

Charles Walker: Is it not the case in reality that if there is an alternative route, there is a dual route? It would be almost impossible to inform and educate people as to when the route shuts and opens. If there is a ferry route, people can use the ferry; but in reality, if the map shows that there is a dual route, they will use that, if they do not fancy getting on a ferry and paying £5.50 or whatever.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. As a keen walker myself, as I am sure other members of the Committee are, when I set out in the winter, not least if I am going into a more challenging environment, whether upland moors or around estuaries and so on, or when I suspect that there may be some disconnection in the route along the way, either because of seasonal variations or because of flooding aspects and so on, I tend to ensure that I plan the route. I take that into account and think, Well, there may not be a ferry running, but there may be alternativesa bus alternative and so on.
However, I want to explain to the hon. Member for St. Ives that the flexibility already in the Bill allows Natural England not only to consult but to bring forward the appropriate route up the estuary to the first point of crossing. Alternatively, should there be the option for a permanent route, it will identify that permanent route. It will identify, mark and chart that route, and that will become the permanent route regardless.

Andrew George: I fully accept the Ministers point and the intervention of the hon. Member for Broxbourne. But as I understand it, regulations that entitle local authorities to designate permissive footpaths still exist. That is certainly the case in my part of the world, where the designation of permissive footpaths continues. Those who seek access to the countryside for recreational and other purposes often find themselves falling foul of permissive footpath regulations or being uncertain when those regulations apply.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is right: permissive path regulations are still available. For example, in a particular estuarine environment, realistically, following consultation and recognising the difficulties of that environment, Natural England may recommend going to that first crossing or ferry point and no further, and that will be as far as it can regularise the route. Then, the local authority and landowners, in the way that they currently handle their local access discussions, might well decide to put in place an alternative route and signpost thatthey might even link it to a bus route or something, in the way that many already do, particularly where there are popular walking areas throughout the year.
We do not expect Natural England to stop the route before the first public crossing point or at an earlier ferry that does not run all year round, unless there are particular difficulties with taking the route further upstream to the first public crossing. If Natural England, after proper consultation with landowners, ramblers and everyone else, sees that there is a route that it can put round an estuary, I suspect that it will do that. But if it thinks that the route can go so far and no furtherthat is, to the first crossing pointit is not for us to say that we see an alternative route, which may go way inland, up and down and in and out. But if Natural England is able to identify that permanent route, it will do so. Therefore, there is no need for the amendment. It would apply to alternative routes as much as to the main route. We consider that we have the balance of the legislation right, as it applies to estuarine environments. The extra flexibility that I have described will be of much help. In view of that, I urge the hon. Member for St. Ives to withdraw his amendment. I understand the motivation behind it, but I do not think that it is necessary.
On amendment 47, the hon. Member for Newbury mentioned his worry about potential harm. Again, I understand his intent, but the current provision from Natural Englands report will include
an alternative route which is to operate as an optional alternative to the ordinary route, or part,
where the ordinary route may
reasonably be regarded as unsuitable for use
in particular circumstances, including flooding, action of the tide and coastal erosion. That will ensure that safety and continuity of the route are maintained.
Amendment 47 would mean that the alternative route may operate as an optional alternative during periods when the route may reasonably be considered unsuitable for use because of future coastal developments. There is a moot issue here: when we talk about future coastal developments, are we talking about developments within the next one, two, five or possibly 10 years, or perhaps even developments on a wish list 20 years down the line?
The hon. Gentlemans amendment goes too far, but there is provision. I want to make it clear that coastal access will not be a barrier to development. The CROW right of access is flexible to allow for changes in land use. There are a number of different ways in which we can ensure that coastal access is appropriate and consistent with the needs of landowners, including any future changes in land use. The line of the route and the spreading room are not fixed permanently. The 1949 Act, as amended by the Bill, will enable Natural England to review them and to propose changes to the Secretary of State, subject again to a full consultation and representation process at a later date. This is notnor should it bea once-and-for-all measure to stymie future development. The legislation can take account of changes in use and future developments, including unforeseeable developments.
Should a route be blocked as a result of development resulting in the land becoming excepted land, and therefore excepted from the right of access, Natural England could review the route and draw up a report proposing a variation. I hope that hon. Members accept that the existing powers are adequate to ensure that future development is catered for. In addition, the CROW Act provides for access to be restricted or excluded by direction in certain circumstances. Anyone with an interest in land can apply to Natural England for a restriction or exclusion on a number of grounds, such as land management, which includes the management of land as part of a business.
If a land manager were to apply for a restriction or exclusion, Natural England would first discuss the situation with the landowner to establish whether less restrictive measures could be effective, such as advisory notices. However, if the restriction or exclusion is necessary, Natural England will make a direction restricting or excluding the CROW right of access. The Bill and the CROW legislation therefore contain provisions to deal with the sort of eventuality to which the hon. Member for St. Ives referred. With those clear assurances, I hope that he will feel comfortable about withdrawing the amendment.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for his response; it is very important to probe these issues. In response to the question about stopping intermittent or limited ferry routes, he said that alternative routes can be explored flexibly in consultation. Organisations such as the Ramblers Association will be seeking reassurance, where possibleI accept his point that safe, accessible routes will not always be identified, especially in estuarine situationson the establishment of such routes.
I have discussed the problem of permissive routes and possible uncertainty. I have some concerns about whether regulations allowing local authorities to designate permissive routes are being applied appropriately, although that is another debating point. Permissive routesin other words, intermittently available routesalready exist in other settings, irrespective of whether they apply as a consequence of a resolution to the issue before us. I accept the Ministers comments, provided that the consultation allows for the exploration of a solution.

Huw Irranca-Davies: It might help to mention another enhanced capacity in the legislation and underpinning regulation: the ability to explore, where appropriate, access and egress routes from the coastal path. Again, that would be done through consultation with Natural England and engagement with local access forums and local authorities. At points of disruption along the coastal path, particularly within estuarine environmentsthis relates not just to permissive routesthere might well be scope to have a dialogue with local landowners and to say, The route stops here. I suspect that, in most cases, access or egress routes will already exist. However, such constructive dialogue could ensure that a walker can literally end a route with access to a road or bus stop. Local authorities could sign post bus transport or other links during the winter. The legislation provides for such flexibility, and it would be good to see local authorities engaging in that sort of approach.

Andrew George: Once again, the Minister has reassured me still further by intervening, and I am grateful to him for that response. In passing, I will comment on amendment 47, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury. Although I understand the principle and sentiment behind it, my concern, which the Minister articulated in his response, is that it refers to future coastal developments without any consideration as to whether they are required to be on the coast, such as port developments, or whether they are simply the kind of developments that those responsible would find desirable to develop on the coastline, such as a nice house with a coastal view, in which case it is not essential that it should obliterate the coastal path. It is important to put future coastal developments in some kind of hierarchy. That is essential, because it is impossible to develop port access, for example, or the other developments that I have described, unless they are clearly on the coastit cannot be done any other way. Having listened to what the Minister said on amendment 54, I am content.

Richard Benyon: I thought that amendment 47 would be an elegant addition to that proposal, because it sits comfortably with the issues relating to erosion. I refer again to Natural Englands draft scheme, which I think gives good indications on how a path would be moved if that became necessary as a result of geomorphological change or erosion. I will not press the amendment, if the Minister can assure me that he will talk to organisations such as the British Marine Federation and perhaps fishing organisations, which have been relatively silent on potential problems surrounding the development of key areas, because the path could enter constrained environments around small fishing communities that might need to develop in order to survive.
I have work-based businesses, in particular, in mind when thinking about that, so I can address the point made by the hon. Member for St. Ives. We could argue about the legitimate right of a landowner to apply for planning permission to build or extend a house. Landowners have rights that should be not subjugated by local planning authorities saying, Well, you cannot do that because the coastal access path goes there. I am much more concerned about businesses being unable to develop as they might need to over the next 10 years in order for hard-pressed industries, such as the fishing industry, and legitimate coastal businesses, such as marinas, to survive. If the Minister can assure me that either he or his officials will be available to discuss that with organisations such as the BMF, we will be able to make progress.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I can indeed assure the hon. Gentleman that we have already, in the Bills long fruition, engaged systematically and repeatedly with all those organisations and others, and we will continue to do so. I also give the assurance that Natural England will also be involved in that engagement, both nationally and locally, when those proposals for the coastal path are brought forward. It is vital to recognise in respect of amendment 47 that future coastal development that is critical and to which there is no alternative must be factored in significantly, whether it affects ports, marinas or other things. However, a fuzzier wish list of areas for possible future development on an array of alternative sites should also be factored into the discussions on the routing of the coastal path. As the hon. Member for St. Ives has said, there are some things that are imminent and right in front of us and to which there are clearly no alternatives, and there are others that we do not want to see as a necessary impediment to the development of the coastal path. I can give him those assurances.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances. I hope that the message will go out to planning authorities that they must not see the coastal path as an inalienable charge on the land that they cannot be flexible about in terms of planning applications. With those assurances, I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives will be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew George: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ann McKechin: I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 296, page 192, line 16, at end insert
(2A) The proposals which may be included in the report by virtue of subsection (2)(a) or (b) do not include proposals relating to any part of the English coastal route
(a) which is established as a result of waters of a river being treated as part of the sea by virtue of section 295 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (river estuaries), and
(b) the line of which passes over land which, for the purposes of section 3A of the CROW Act (power to extend access land to coastal land etc: England), is coastal land by virtue of subsection (11) of that section..

This provides that coastal access reports may not propose to draw the landward boundary of coastal margin or the landward or seaward boundary of the alternative route strip to coincide with a physical feature where the coastal route passes over land adjacent to the waters of a non-tidal river.

Greg Pope: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 60 and 61.

Ann McKechin: These are technical amendments to ensure that the power in the Bill to propose the route beyond the tidal range of a river on an estuary can work effectively. Clause 295 sets out how the coastal access duty applies where the coast is interrupted by a river, allowing Natural England to treat the relevant upstream waters of a river as though they were the sea. It is necessary because the coastal access duty in clause 290 applies to the English coast, which is defined in clause 294 as being the coast of England adjacent to the sea.
Subsection (3) says that where the coast is interrupted by a river, the coastal route may be extended as far upstream as the first public foot crossing. However, in order to allow access to the route, the land that it covers must be accessible to the public as coastal margin, which we intend to define for the rest of the coast through an order under section 3A as land adjacent to the foreshore. In situations where the first public foot crossing of a river is upstream of the tidal range of that river, there will be no foreshore, so the land cannot become coastal margin.
Amendments 60 and 61 remedy that by treating land at the brink of any non-tidal waters as part of the foreshore for the purposes of the definition of coastal land in section 3 of the CROW Act, where waters of a river are treated as part of the sea under clause 295. We feel that in such circumstances, the main issue is continuity of the route. It is important that Natural England has the ability to propose the route beyond the tidal range of the river where it has taken the decision to define the sea as extending up as far as the first public crossing point. We are concerned with the route itself only beyond the tidal range of the river and do not intend that access will be permitted to the margin of land beside the route on that part of the river. To achieve that, the order under section 3A of CROW will create another category of excepted land to remove from the right of access the land beside the route on those stretches of it.
Amendment 59 provides that where waters of a non-tidal river are treated under section 295 as being part of the sea, and the line of the route passes over land that is coastal land by virtue of section 3A(11) of CROW, it is not possible to use the powers in section 55D(2)(a) or (b). Those are the powers enabling Natural England to draw the boundary of the margin or an alternative route strip to coincide with a physical feature. We have taken the view that since the main aim of the amendments is to ensure the continuity of the route, it would not be appropriate to have the power to widen the route strip to coincide with a physical feature in those circumstances.
In essence, the power provides for the land beside a non-tidal river to be designated as coastal margin so the route can pass up the estuary to the first crossing point or to a point between the mouth and the first crossing point. However, it does not enable the route strip to be widened to coincide with a physical feature. In order to be consistent with the aim of continuity of the route, we intend to provide that the land beside the route strip on a non-tidal river is excepted land.
Without the amendments, we believe that Natural England would not be able to fulfil the coastal access duty on estuaries and continuity of the route would not be possible. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Richard Benyon: The Minister referred to these as technical amendments, but they are more fundamental than that, because they redefine what is meant by the term coast. My future amendments will seek to portray, as have my previous amendments, that different circumstances exist in many of our estuary environments in relation to the meaning of the term coast.
On Government amendment 59, if the boundary does not coincide with a physical feature, how will it be defined? Does that mean that there will be no spreading room on the landward side? We need an explanation, because the issue is fundamentally important. What constitutes a physical feature?
On Government amendments 60 and 61, we tabled a number of amendments that were not selected for discussion, but they reflected the concerns of many people and organisations that, by including estuaries in the coastal access provisions, the Government may be going a step too far by extending the duty beyond the Bills original purpose, which is to improve access to the English coastline.
Moving inland along estuaries will impose a route that is not necessarily in the interests of those who wish to follow the coastal path, and that will draw more businesses, private dwellings and, more importantly, conservation areas into the scheme. We are forgetting about the vast majority of people who want to walk in coastal areas. Such people do not necessarily want to walk the length and breadth of a coastal region, circumnavigate the whole coastline, or walk along the entire south-west coast. The majority of such people want to access a point on the coast by public transport or by car and walk a section of beautiful coastline before perhaps cutting inland on a right of way to take a circular route, or they may want to wander back along the same route. Those are the people that we should be concerned about, and I sometimes wonder whether our discussions are losing touch with that fact.
Many estuaries have considerable environmental, developmental and geographical constraints. The Coastal Access Forum consists of important organisations, and I will list them for the record: the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, the British Marine Federation, the British Association of Leisure Parks, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the British Holiday and Home Parks Association, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the Country Land and Business Association, the Historic Houses Association, the National Farmers Union, the Tourism Alliance and the Visitor Attractions Forum.
Those organisations recognise that estuaries can present different problems for access provision compared with the coast, and point out that estuaries are often highly developed with commercial or residential property, and may be subject to environmental constraints. Most importantly, the organisations make the valid point that consideration should be given to the presence of existing public rights of way, the practicality of establishing a route and the impact of any associated coastal margin when estuaries are being looked at for coastal access.
Rather than attempting to redefine estuaries as coast, it would surely be simpler for the Government to acknowledge that the creation of margin and route along estuaries is fraught with difficulty, and that it should not be added to the Bill. Some of the maps towards the end of Natural Englands excellent draft scheme show how complicated life becomes when one moves beyond what is more frequently termed the tidal barrier. The Severn estuary, which is of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, involves the communities of Weston-super-Mare, Clevedon and Bristol on one side and parts of Cardiff, Newport and Chepstow on the other. All along the estuary are a large number of interests, be they residential or commercial. We have to be extremely careful how we progress this argument.

Roger Williams: In order that there be no doubt about the matter, this part of the Bill does not refer to Wales. Presumably that is for illustration purposes only. The Welsh Assembly Government are setting out their own scheme.

Richard Benyon: I was once again plucking an example from the air. Perhaps, to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, I can use the Southend-on-Sea estuary, which includes Canvey Island, Tilbury and, on the other side, Sheerness and all the developments around the Medway. He was right to pull me up on this, but half of the estuary to which I referred was English coast. The redefinition of estuaries as coast for the purposes of this Bill does not change the simple fact that estuaries are not coast.

Ann McKechin: The hon. Member for Newbury raises legitimate concerns about the complexity as we go further up rivers and estuaries. That is why the Bill gives Natural England flexibility to propose the establishment of routes up the estuaries. We realise that estuaries can be small, medium and large. They are very different. Each has its own unique circumstances. Natural England can decide not to run the long distance route up the estuary and down the other side if the difficulties of taking the route around the estuary outweigh the benefits.
We understand that there are challenges. The ability to include estuaries is bound by a strict set of criteria set out in clause 291. Natural England must have regard to:
(a) the safety and convenience of those using the English coastal route,
(b) the desirability of that route adhering to the periphery of the coast and providing views of the sea, and
(c) the desirability of ensuring that so far as reasonably practicable interruptions to that route are kept to a minimum.
Natural England must additionally have regard to the matters set out in clause 295(4):
(a) the nature of the land which would...become part of the coast...
(b) the topography of the shoreline...
(c) the width of the river upstream to that limit;
(d) the recreational benefit to the public of the coastal access duty being extended...
(e) the extent to which the land bordering those waters would, if it were coastal margin, be excepted land;
(f) whether it is desirable to continue the English coastal route to a particular physical feature
(g) the existence of a ferry .
The list is not exclusive. It must be remembered that at all timeswhen discharging the coastal access duty, Natural England must also aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights to access and the interests, including the economic interests, of owners and occupiers. That has to be a fair balance of those interests.

Charles Walker: Where the route deviates from the coast up an estuary and perhaps beyond the estuary up the river, was I right in thinking that it would not necessarily follow the river bank and that alternative routes may be found?

Ann McKechin: There would be flexibility. We are trying to make sure that we do not end up with a prescriptive path, which will end up with further difficulties for users. We have made it quite clear that we do not think that this will cover all estuaries. It would be an excessive use of powers. We want Natural England to use its discretion, but to use it fairly and reasonably and practically.
The hon. Member for Newbury asked about the phrase physical feature. Section 55D(2), which clause 296 would insert in the 1949 Act, enables the coastal margin to be expanded to a physical feature beyond the normal definition of coastal land. A physical feature might be a fence, a group of rocks, cliffs or a landmark. I think that a physical feature is easily defined; I think that it is obvious to the eye what a physical feature is.
With regard to the boundary, we simply mean that the route strip will not be able to be expanded to meet a physical feature. It will just be a route strip of a specifically defined width. There will be no access to a margin of land to the landward side of the route strip; there will just be access to the route strip itself.

Richard Benyon: I want to get this matter absolutely clear. So, we are talking about a different level of designation here, are we? Any extension of the route that entered the estuary area of a river would not have spreading room. Strictly speaking, it would be a 4 m path with no rights of access to either side of that path.

Ann McKechin: I am waiting for inspiration on that issue, because the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point about clarification and I am keen to ensure that I address it.

Richard Benyon: May I assist the Minister, while she seeks inspiration, by raising another point? In our debate on clause 295, she quoted the list in the clause about:
(b) the topography of the shoreline adjacent to those waters;
(c) the width of the river upstream to that limit;
and so on. However, that list did not include the legitimate rights of businesses nor the rights of property-owners. Perhaps she could give us some assurance that those factors are recognised there too?

Ann McKechin: May I just reiterate for the record that I actually mentioned that taking account of economic interests would be integral to Natural England making a decision on the fair balance when it looks at the economic interests of landowners in terms of clause 291? So I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that economic interests will be taken into account.
I also understand that the estuary, after the tidal limit, will be just a route stripthat is it. It is simply a route strip, which will be a narrow path.

Richard Benyon: I am confused about where in the amendment it says that. It is important to get this point in the Bill. There will be a great many people concerned at this proposed change to the Bill and I want the Minister to reassure them, because the Government are now talking about an entirely different proposal. That different proposal would exclude all concept of spreading room, there would only be a 4 m path and there can be no extension from that.
Regarding the Ministers other point, that the commercial interests of people in estuaries will be considered by Natural England, we need that in the Bill. That point does not appear to be listed in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can clarify where that point enters into our understanding.

Ann McKechin: I point out that clause 295(4)(g) states that there must be a balance struck between the interests of the public and the interests of owners and occupiers. Interests would obviously be economic interests.

Richard Benyon: I apologise to the Minister, but clause 295(4)(g) is about:
the existence of a ferry.

Ann McKechin: My apologies. I just want to clarify that, when we talk about the interests of owners and occupiers, which is mentioned throughout the Bill at other points, we mean their economic interests as well as other factors that may apply. That point has been made in our debates on other clauses in the Bill.
However, if the hon. Gentleman is still concerned about this particular definition of a physical feature, I would be prepared to withdraw these amendments at this stage, so that we can seek further clarification that will hopefully be of assistance to him.

Richard Benyon: I am really grateful to the Minister. That is a very reasonable and thoughtful way of proceeding. I can assure her that I will work very closely to try to achieve that, because I think that that might be a way forward here.

Ann McKechin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at One oclock.